But his ghost is still kicking around. The ghost of god persists in two forms, one as religion and the other as spirituality (without religious organization). I should be more precise and state that when I say spirituality or spiritualism I mean it on a more personal level. Spirituality exists in many forms in organized religion, but it really is a much more personal aspect and can be viewed as independent of a religious institution.
Spirituality, I believe, is worse than the institution of religion. When combined with religion it is very dangerous indeed. This will upset many. After all, what harm is it to believe your own superstitions and keep them to yourself? It would seem that the real danger lies in large institutions such as the Catholic Church, which has historically carried out atrocities, or evangelical Christians with a warmongering agenda. Such institutions, however, must feed off of a spiritual populace, a populace open to faith, belief, and mystery.
Superstitions, the belief in the supernatural, and faith are all corrosive aspects of a society that have become entangled in religious institutions and deeply wedded to them. In an early society, the religious institution serves primarily as the institution of law. At this stage, the religious institution itself could be viewed as a positive force on societal development. But as time progresses, the inflexibility of the religious institution will cause it to impede societal progress. The institution will seize upon superstition to maintain power in the face of decreasing relevance. But it would never be able to do so in a society that was unreceptive to superstition.
In many ways, the society we have created in the western world is very open to superstition. Political leaders champion faith-based initiatives and faith is considered commendable. While there is not open tolerance for religious fanaticism, moderate personal spirituality is viewed positively, as an asset rather than a liability.
First, I aim to highlight why spirituality is superstition, and why superstition is to be rejected by any critical thinker. While spiritualism is very personal and varies from individual to individual, it is roughly definable. A moral code of conduct is not spiritualism. Spiritualism is openness to the idea that there are some things to which science and the reason of man does not apply, a spiritual realm if you will. This can manifest itself in receptiveness to personal health ideas such as Dianetics, a belief in dream catchers, a belief in a personal god, or even vague notions such as an impersonal life force. My intent is not to refute any of these bold claims, but rather to refute their arguments. In any case of spiritualism, the ideas are not accepted on the sound basis of reason, logic, verifiable evidence, the scientific method, or judgement. And this is why spiritualism is so dangerous. It is a rejection of logical principles, if even only in a small aspect of one’s life.
While I do not deny that many may have had what they consider to be spiritual experiences, I assert that these experiences alone are not the basis upon which individuals form their spirituality. Indeed, any such personal experiences are insubstantial for the acceptance of a reasonable individual. While I cannot comment on the experiences that others have had, I can say that no one has had any experience that has been independently verified that cannot be explained by a reasonable explanation lacking the complexity of a spiritual one. Allow me to illustrate with an example that is fairly common: out of body experiences. Many people claim to have had such experiences, and I lack the grounds to accept or deny such claims. But many claim that these experiences demonstrate the existence of a human soul that is independent from one’s body, and the existence of an immaterial spiritual realm. These claims I can deny.
I myself fall into the category of claiming to have had out-of-body experiences. There was a brief period of time during my life where I would view myself from the perspective of a distant observer. This would occur mid conversation, where I could see myself carrying out the conversation I was having but I did not feel as though I was the one having the conversation, I was a distant observer. While I admit my experiences lack the drama of deathbed out-of-body experiences, I suspect that my reaction to those would be much the same. My reaction to such experiences was that there were peculiar, unwelcome, and frequent enough to be cause for concern. Fortunately these experiences stopped and I have not had any such experiences since. Nothing about those experiences led me to notions of a spiritual realm, yet as they reside in my memory, I do not deny that they happened, I simply deny the superstitious interpretation of them. There is nothing in such an experience that demands an acknowledgement of the supernatural. My experiences could be explained through neurology and an examination of my mental states. Any reasonable person could come to similar conclusions given similar experiences. Yet many people draw outrageous conclusions from such simple experiences. Take dreams for example, widely experienced, yet few would regard them as evidence of an alternate immaterial universe. Yet such bizarre thinking is applied to out-of-body experiences. If your experience was truly spectacular, then it warrants scientific investigation, not spiritual belief.
Another example is déjà vu. I experience what I would consider an abnormal amount of déjà vu in comparison to the average individual. I often experience the sensation of having had a conversation before. This will frequently manifest itself as nested déjà vu’s. That is, I will remember remembering to have had the conversation. Actions that I take to ‘break the spell’ as it were often only make the sensation worse, such as abruptly ending the conversation or doing something out of character. To a reasonable individual, this sounds like a peculiar mental disorder. There is nothing about such experiences to suppose that it is supernatural. Perhaps the frequency of my déjà vu gives me a more pragmatic perspective, just as the familiarity of dreams causes us to accept them as explicable in terms of science rather than evidence for the unknown. But the problem is, many people view dreams as evidence for the unknown.
What I have hoped to illustrate is that there is nothing supernatural about a supposedly supernatural occurrence. Provided that we believe the validity of the experience, then we can use the tools of reason and science to examine, explain, and understand such experiences. There need be nothing mysterious about them. People who claim such experiences as evidence of the spiritual are predisposed to their spiritual beliefs. The experiences don’t form a basis because by themselves they are insubstantial. Seeing what appeared to be a ghost would not cause me to start believing in ghosts. Yet lack of verifiable evidence demanding a supernatural explanation does not stop many from insisting on the existence of such things.
Spirituality is superstition for a very simple reason: a supernatural explanation is never the best explanation because it is not an explanation at all. Suppose ghosts do exist. If so, then we would be able to somehow verify their existence. Further, we could form an understanding of how they operate. In effect, we could gain knowledge about them. But then what would be supernatural about them? While we might discover as yet unknown laws of nature, they would still be subject to the scientific method. Ghosts would be very natural, a remarkable phenomenon but natural nonetheless. This extends to all supposed supernatural beings that were somehow able to prove their existence. If it exists, then it can be described and theoretically understood, and then it is not a mystery, and if it is not a mystery then it is not supernatural. To call such things supernatural would be like calling lightning supernatural or sun showers supernatural. In effect, the supernatural doesn't exist, because it can’t exist. Note that I have not asserted that supernatural things cannot exist (e.g. ghosts) only that supposing they did exist, they wouldn't be supernatural.
The acceptance of spirituality is an acceptance of superstition, which is a denial of rational thought and critical thinking. This is why spirituality is so dangerous. How can one be expected to make sound judgements and decisions if one foregoes critical thinking? I am not saying that those who claim to be spiritual are irrational in all aspects of their lives or that they forego critical thinking in everything. But for whatever reason, they abandon these tools in certain circumstances. Further, they hold an irrational world view, one that maintains without evidence that these tools can only go so far and forbids their use in certain circumstances, without first testing their usefulness in such situations.
From superstition come a wealth of unsubstantiated claims and beliefs that go so far as to affect public policy. Genetically modified foods have been a target in the eyes of activists and so-called nutritionists. That all crops are genetically modified seems to be lost on them. They maintain that modern modification is somehow unnatural. Rational thought would reveal that the real issue is whether the modifications result in food that is harmful. Each food simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits. There is no need for special restriction on genetically modified foods. But a superstitious disposition has made these people unreceptive to reason in an issue that concerns public policy.
Many proponents of so-called ‘mature spirituality’ would like to put god out of reach so to speak. They maintain that god requires faith, and that proof of him would remove this requirement for faith, such that there can be no proof of god. God cannot be proven they maintain. You must have faith. But the trouble with this is that, if god really is unprovable, then he doesn't exist. If something cannot be proven (theoretically rather than through technical limitations or those of the imagination) then it must not produce any observable effects that could not be better explained by something simpler. Imagine yourself towering over an anthill. The ants, cannot see you, and indeed lack any concept of you. Suppose you spray water on the ants while watering your grass. They might hypothesize that some giant malevolent being is out to get them. But your spray is not directed at the ants, and it seems a better explanation that some less complicated cause is the matter. Supposing your existence based solely on that observation is extraneous, unnecessary, excess baggage. The ants would do best to do any with any thought of your existence. But you are not theoretically unprovable to the ants, only practically unprovable. You might step on the ants malevolently; in which case, they might be better able to increase their chances of survival by hypothesizing your existence. But to be theoretically unprovable, you have to be somehow incapable of interacting with the ants in any way, which would suggest your existence as the best explanation. How this is possible with you still existing is rather strange, but the fact is that you would be completely non-existent to the ants. An unprovable god is a non-existent god, in fact, not a god at all, but a delusion.
A superstitious populace is unreceptive to technological progress, prone to fall into religion and ignorance and warmongering. There is nothing virtuous about any of these.
